Accountability in legal decision-making
Mostra el registre complet Registre parcial de l'ítem
- dc.contributor.author Maegherman, Enide
- dc.contributor.author Ask, Karl
- dc.contributor.author Horselenberg, Robert
- dc.contributor.author Koppen, Peter J. van
- dc.date.accessioned 2022-12-20T07:06:14Z
- dc.date.available 2022-12-20T07:06:14Z
- dc.date.issued 2022
- dc.description Supplemental material file: online appendix.
- dc.description.abstract Having to explain a decision has often been found to have a positive effect on the quality of a decision. We aimed to determine whether different accountability requirements for judges (i.e., having to justify their decision or having to explicate their decision) affect evidence use. Those requirements were compared to instructions based on the falsification principle and a control condition. Participants (N = 173) decided on the defendant’s guilt in a murder case vignette and explained their decision according to the instructions. The explication and falsification (but not the justification) instructions increased the use of exonerating evidence. There was no significant difference between the groups in guilt perception. The use of exonerating evidence was a significant positive predictor of acquittal rates. The implications for the different forms of instructions in practice are positive, but suggest a difference between the evidence considered and the evidence used to account for the decision.
- dc.format.mimetype application/pdf
- dc.identifier.citation Maegherman E, Ask K, Horselenberg R, van Koppen PJ. Accountability in legal decision-making. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law. 2022;29(3):345-63. DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2021.1904452
- dc.identifier.doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2021.1904452
- dc.identifier.issn 1321-8719
- dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10230/55190
- dc.language.iso eng
- dc.publisher Taylor & Francis
- dc.relation.ispartof Psychiatry, Psychology and Law. 2022;29(3):345-63
- dc.rights © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
- dc.rights.accessRights info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
- dc.rights.uri http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
- dc.subject.keyword Accountability
- dc.subject.keyword Confirmation bias
- dc.subject.keyword Falsification
- dc.subject.keyword Legal decision-making
- dc.title Accountability in legal decision-making
- dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/article
- dc.type.version info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion